Chomsky & War
bulldogg said:
Alright I'll read them. Though I don't see how I show any kind of preconceived opinion here. I already stated I don't agree with his political ideas (mostly). I read about "Do as I say, not as I do" there was an article on this a few months ago in the SPIEGEL. I also know about him euphemizing the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Guess that must be some kind of american disease, when theres noone really opposing your opinion just direct your anger at anyone with slightly different ideas. Like in the Liberalism-thread, you have nothing that is anyway near a socialist movement in the US but you rant against liberals like they were on the verge of flying the red flag on the capitol.
And whats that cartoon supposed to mean?
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
The man is a traitor. I believe my dislike of him as a person is quite justified. I dismiss his ideas as well because in my opinion a man who doesn't follow his own advice to others is not to be listened to about anything.
Since you're not American Loki I have hunted and found the following example that is German in nature.
Since you're not American Loki I have hunted and found the following example that is German in nature.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001256/news
Last edited:
Ollie Garchy
Active member
bulldogg said:
Hi Bulldogg,
I disagree that Chomsky is a traitor. While the government might call him treacherous, since he calls for the severe curtailing of state power, he is actually working for the people. His comments concerning "wage slavery" are for example incredibly astute and warranted.
The fact that he earns money is unimportant. Few anarchists (just the commune types) believe in a community without personal property. Chomsky was a prof. at MIT and he published a great deal. That means at least a little bit of money. I actually thought that he had more than just a couple of houses and some savings. The part about Pentagon subsidies is what bothers me. Socialism does not mean poverty. Socialism means ending the perverse accumulation of wealth by a few people. Don't focus on Chomsky. Focus on the Fortune 500. Those guys are the ones who argue that capitalism is good for everyone. Now, where is the evidence for that lie?
Marlene Dietrich is not a good example. Was she even a traitor? While the Germans of her time thought so, modern Germans applaud the actress. She was an anti-Nazi. I thought those people were normally considered the good Germans.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
We'll have to agree to disagree because the jury has rendered the verdict on Chomsky as far as I am concerned. As for Dietrich, I'm just trying to provide a culturally significant example of someone some people wouldn't consider a traitor but most Germans of her day did. Quite similar to how a number of people in the US feel about the traitors who worked for the North Vietnamese in the 60's and 70's of which Chomsky was one.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
bulldogg said:
Okay, I am not a Chomskyite...I just really like some of the ideas. In any case, I can understand what you dislike about the man. His support of communist states in the past irritates me. An anarchist should abhor communism.
But what about the idea of legal constraints on war? Are we going to admit that power determines morality or the application of law? If, for example, the United States government (or any government) only uses law to control foreign powers, what does that tell us about morality? Not really objective, huh.
CABAL
Active member
That brings about the question whether International Institutions contain false promises or not. The United State Government is the only nation in the world that is able to project power abroadly and able to maintain a massive carrier force without competition from other powerful states. The US has the most powerful economic, network, political, and military establishment in place, therefore making International Organizations rendered useless that has no abilities in checking powerful states in place. The Pentagon's framework of establishing military bases in the middle east and in Asia is causing Russia and China to align together, thus creating the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). The more countries act in its own interests, the more collective security organizations concerning their interests are likely to appear.
Chomsky has a point about the UN's opposition towards the US advancement to the War in Iraq. A state that has the most mechanized, prepared, and equipped military that is able to project power is the most dangerous in terms of its obligations with International Institutions. During the intitial stages of the Second World War Japan, Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union acted uniterally and collectively and violated several norms that existed previously. I worry that the US is alienating itself from these obligations and International Law, calling it's actions righteous.
"Pre-emptive war or Preventitive" war are two entirely differences. The war in Iraq is still questionable, the possiblity of Iraq harming the National Security Interests of the US still remains low since its military after Gulf War I was relatively weak and therefore cannot launch an invasion against its neighbors. While the US media acted like Cheerleaders during 2003 and now opposes the war today, I keep asking this simple question that is being constantly ingored because of incompetence and stupidity: Did Iraq actually pose an imminent threat to the US? Does it have the delivery systems that is able to reach to the US? Is the Iraqi regime well associated with any terrorist organization?
Dietrich decision to alienate herself with her motherland has nothing to do with cultural significance, but many of which were politically driven. You must remember that the entire world was engaged in propaganda wars during this time period. Anything German is evil as they would say.
S. Vietnam was an entirely different situation. South Vietnam was a illiberal democractic system. They crushed political dissent relentlessly, persecuting Buddhists to an extent that made them burn themselves in the streets, and oppressed its own people that persuaded its own citizens to join the North famously known as the Vietcong Guerillas.
Dietrich alienating herself from her motherland culturally driven? No. She was trying to appease her hosts.
Last edited by a moderator:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
God damnit Cabal. I did not say Dietrich alienating herself was culturally significant did I? No, I said that the issue with Chomsky and Americans is correlated in German culture with Dietrich and Germans. A culturally significant parralell ffs. Tracking now or is the cultural rift too great?
We have a winner.
CABAL
Active member
I'm beginning to understand your argument, but it is not going anywhere I'm afraid.
I still do not know why Marlene Dietrich has to do with this debate. It is completely irrevelant.
Chomsky is a far left leaning liberal while Bulldogg considers him a traitor. This is a battle of political idealogies.
CABAL
Active member
If that is the case, then I am expecting you to apply the same concept towards my country and to any country/continent/regime/state/ or whatever that is referred to in this forum.
If you're posting about the history and political situation of Germany or the EU, I do not expect you to understand as well. But your comparisons with Marlene Dietrich to Chomsky is confusing me and that is the problem. Marlene Dietrich defected from Germany during the Second World War because it was ruled by an regime which she does not like. That is a political reason.
Last edited:
